The Royal Hotel

Hanna (Julia Garner) and Liv (Jessica Henwick) are traveling best friends far from home. They are on a party boat in Sydney, Australia. With money trouble, they take up jobs in a remote mining town. They are barmaids working for Billy (Hugo Weaving) who is drunk most of the time. The town is full of drunken men and not many women.

I want Hanna and Liv to be smarter for the sake of the story. I can't believe that they didn't get the Dickens joke. It's the type of joke to accentuate somebody's stupidity and the movie does exactly that. I do like Hanna's reason for not drinking. I did expect the story to go a different way. It takes a sharp turn near the end which I don't mind. I would like something more during that stormy night so the payoff could be more satisfying. It sets up a couple of things that never pays off. The color coding of the beers should be something but it goes nowhere. I thought this story had a darker back story especially with the British chicks. This movie could be something but it stops short.

This movie is a dramatic interpretation of the documentary film "hotel coolgardie" (I reviewed that also on IMDb)

It tells the story of two backpackers travelling through Australia and they take up a job via a job agency (very common in Australia backpacking community). Only downside the hotel is in south Australia in a mining location.

They are met with a culture shock of how rough the men are and how the women have to cope with chauvinism.

The movie portrays real life in the mining towns of southern Australia where the pub is the main gathering location and where men drink far too much.

There are a few scenes where artistic license is used to make for a more dramatic movie but all in all it's a true reflection of the experiences many female travellers have.

I recommend to watch and then view "Hotel Coolgardie" to compare.

Ugh...where do I begin. The film is a dog. A pointless, boring, series of missed chances to land some useful commentary. The fact this film is even circulating right now is testament to just how bad the selection of available films in the US is at the moment.

Julia Garner in her OLD hair (c. 2019) bores us with the prospect of a stunning performance...because that's what the marketing promises. Surprise! No such thing...instead we get a series of events punctuated by alcohol (so "1960") and lonely dysfunctional isolated men...(oh hey! That's new! NOT!) All the tension is queued up for a meaningful something-or-other but voila...no delivery... instead audiences are punished with a closeup of Garner mopping up vomit. Yay!

Skip this one...

Felt compelled to leave a review after watching this last night and seeing how many people left poor reviews. All i knew going into it was that it was filmed in Australia and i'm a fan of JG so would watch it regardless of much else.

Enjoyed this from start to finish. For some, movies are about what they make you feel and think. If you enjoy character studies about people, place, time or circumstances then this might be up your alley. It's not a happy movie nor a true horror which is probably how many have been left disappointed. Indie drama/thriller would better describe it.

It's bleak and scary for the fact that human nature is often something to fear more than anything pretend. I had that sick feeling of unease through throughout (which is something i really appreciate from such movies).

I would watch it again however my partner (male) watching with me was waiting for something bigger to happen and felt the end was anti climatic - 2 different views.

Strangely, I had this gut feeling that I'd enjoy this movie, solely based on the poster, even before reading the synopsis or watching the trailer. I was then worried I'd set my expectations too high, so I lowered them a bunch. At the time of writing this, there are fewer than 20 IMDb reviews, most of them being 1/10 ratings, which makes me feel somewhat delusional for not disliking it.

Now, let's be clear, not much happens in this film. If you're looking for a riveting storyline, this ain't it. The characters lack depth, and while there are hints about why they left 'Canada', we never really learn much about them. It's implied there's more to them, but never shown/said. Surprisingly, I wasn't annoyed by this, just as I wasn't bothered by the lack of things happening. I genuinely enjoyed it and felt a detailed backstory wasn't necessary.

The biggest issue lies in its marketing as a "thriller," which likely skewed people's expectations, accentuated by Julia Garner's Ozark fame. If I knew it was meant to be a thriller beforehand, I might have disliked it too. It's more of an indie-style, maybe psychological film, so forget any notions of it being a thriller; that's like when movies throw in a jump scare and eerie music and slapping the "horror" label on it when it isn't. I hate that.

It reminds me of movies like "American Honey," where I felt like I was actually in the movie, experiencing everything alongside the characters. I remember seeing a lot of bad reviews for that one too, even though I enjoyed it. "The Royal Hotel" will likely be a love-it-or-hate-it kind of thing. Many people don't like it, and I get why when I hear their reasons, but personally, I really enjoyed it. It's not a mind-blowing story, as I mentioned, but it held my attention throughout. I was glued to the screen. Most of it takes place in one location, yet it feels like so much is going on.

The whole first hour and then some felt like a build-up to the last 20 minutes. There wasn't much character development early on, but they grew on me as the movie progressed. There's a sense that things will go south when the girls are left alone. The tension built up beautifully for about 1hr15, then unraveled in just 10 minutes. Climax felt short lived, then again it is a short film, think I've just been watching a lot of 2-3 hour movies lately. Strangely enough, and I probably get some flak for this, but I genuinely enjoyed this more than "Killers of the Flower Moon," even though Scorsese's film had much more to it. Underscores the importance of pacing I guess.

It feels like they created the characters first and then figured out how the plot could evolve from there, rather than starting with a story. It's a raw film and disturbing for a guy to watch how the men behave in it. There's a warning about the remote setting and men at the beginning. I love how the movie went about depicting bad characters as bad characters, in stark contrast to Barbie for instance. The message is unmistakable, yet the film doesn't hammer it home repeatedly; it's conveyed through actions, not words.

I believe that Barbie was a good movie, and if it had followed a similar approach in portraying its characters, it could have conveyed its message effectively without receiving the backlash it did regarding how the 'Kens' were depicted. The same principle applies to portraying good guys as good guys and showcasing strong female leads. I think the argument against guys not liking badass female leads is unfounded. We've had iconic characters like Lara Croft, avatar Korra, The Bride from Kill Bill, Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games, Camille Preaker from Sharp Objects, and most recently, Supergirl from The Flash( a lot of guys literally hated the movie but her). Anyway I side tracked big time lol but back to "The Royal Hotel," I also enjoyed the two leads and how they had a compelling and badass conclusion.

The acting was fantastic and believable, perhaps the best from the two leads I've seen. Everything felt genuine, and the plot evolved naturally based on the characters' decisions and actions, making it all the more believable. In my opinion, the best aspect of this movie is how everything progresses naturally because of it.

I loved it. But a lot of people seem to not like the movie so maybe I'm delusional one here. I guess I'll add this to my list of guilty pleasures.